Johnny Mario Duran, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Gary W. Deland, Jim Gober, Perales, Richardson, Darrell,muller, Defendants-appellees, 972 F.2d 356 (10th Cir. 1992)

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir.R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

This appeal is from an order of the district court adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing plaintiff's complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Appellant Johnny Duran appeals on the grounds that the district court erred in dismissing his complaint because the complaint failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We affirm.

We agree with the district court that all allegations against the defendants in their official capacities must be dismissed because 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not provide a congressional override to the Eleventh Amendment. Therefore, state officials acting in their official capacities are immune from suit. With respect to the individual claims against defendants, Duran has failed to show the deprivation of a property or liberty interest sufficient to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We have held that the Constitution does not create a property or liberty interest in prison employment. Ingram v. Papalia, 804 F.2d 595, 596 (10th Cir. 1986). Any such interest must be created by state law. See Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460 (1983). Utah law does not create such a right to prison employment. Further, the "C" notes, or chronological notes, are property of the prison in which the inmate has no property interest. Thus, the district court correctly dismissed the complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.